State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Superintendent Of ... vs Ravichandran,Perambalur District. & 3 ... on 22 October, 2010
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI Present Hon'ble Thiru Justice M. THANIKACHALAM PRESIDENT Tmt.Vasugi Ramanan, M.A., B.L., MEMBER I Thiru.S.Sambandam, B.Sc., MEMBER II F.A.299/2007 [Against order in C.C.8/2006 on the file of the DCDRF, Perambalur] DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF OCTOTBER 2010 1.
The Superintendent of Police, | Perambalur District. | Perambalur. | | Appellants/1 & 2 OPs.
2. The Additional Superintendent of Police, | P.E.W. Perambalur District. | Perambalur. | Vs.
1. Ravichandran, | Respondent / Complainant S/o.
Krishnamoorthy, | Padavalur Village, | Kunnam Taluk, | Perambalur District. | 2. The Regional Transport Officer, | Perambalur District, | Perambalur. | | 3. The Inspector of Police, | Respondents / 3, 4 & 5 OPs. Cantonment Crime Police Station, | Tiruchirappalli. | | 4. M/s.Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd., | Tiruchirappalli. | The first respondent as
complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.2,58,720/- towards auction amount, to pay Rs.1 lakh towards compensation for unused vehicle, to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency in service for non issuing of RC Book, to pay Rs.20,000/- towards deficiency in service, to pay Rs.30,000/- for removing tyre bubes and stepeny and to pay Rs.75,000/- towards deficiency and caused mental agony to the complainant. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the first and second opposite party, praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.02.05.2007 in C.C.8/2006.
This appeal coming before us for hearing on 04.10.2010, upon hearing the arguments of the either counsel and perused the documents, written submission filed by the appellant as well as the order of the District Forum, this commission made the following order:
Counsel for the Appellants/1 & 2 OPs : M/s.A.D.Jagadish Chandran, Advocate.
For the R1 & R3 /Complainat/4th OP. : Served Absent.
Counsel for the R2 /3rd OP. : Mr.K.K.Senthil Kumar, Advocate.
Counsel for the R4 /5th OP. : Mr.S.Vasudevan, Advocate.
M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT
1. The first and second opposite parties are the appellants.
2. The respondent in this appeal, who is the complainant in C.C.8/2006 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Perambalur, had participated in the auction conducted by the second opposite party on 21.10.2005, took the vehicle TATA 207 D1, TN-46-C-3730 in auction for a total sum of Rs.2,58,720/-. Pursuant to the confirmation of the auction, though the vehicle was delivered, papers relating to the vehicle namely R.C. Book, Road Tax etc., were not given, resulting non-user of the vehicle, by the complainant, which caused monetary loss.
When the complainant contacted the second opposite parties, he assured that there cannot be any problem and he can use the vehicle having the sale certificate.
3. On 06.01.2006, when the complainant took the vehicle for registration, the fifth opposite party seized the vehicle, then changed its parts also, amounting to Rs.30,000/-, for which, a police complaint was given, no action has been taken, though the complainant had spent a sum of Rs.20,000/-. In the absence of RC Book and other related documents, the complainant was unable to use the vehicle, and therefore he is liable to claim interest for Rs.2,58,720/- since he borrowed loan, as well under the heading loss of income of Rs.1 lakh, in addition to, compensation for deficiency for changing the parts by the 5th OP as well for the dereliction of duty committed by the 4th O.P., totaling a sum of Rs.4,93,720/-. Hence, the claim.
4. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd opposite parties in their Written Version, admitting the purchase of the vehicle by the complainant in the auction, would contend that the auction purchaser alone should have approached the authorities under Section 57 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 for registering the vehicle, for which, the opposite parties cannot be held responsible, that despite intimation to the complainant to apply under Section 57 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, he failed to do so, that as Auctioned Authority under the Act, they have given Auction Certificate on 21.10.2005 itself and that since they have not committed any deficiency of service, they are not liable to answer the claim falsely leveled, in the complaint, praying for the dismissal of the complaint.
5. The District Forum though recorded finding, that it is not possible to attribute any deficiency in service on the part of the third opposite party, it find fault with first and second opposite parties as if they have failed to issue necessary documents, for which, they should be directed to pay compensation. In this way, dismissing the complaint as against the fourth and fifth opposite parties, a direction has been issued against the first and second opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation, in addition to, a sum of Rs.2,000/- as cost, further, directing the first and second opposite parties, to issue necessary documents, with reference to the vehicle, enabling the complainant to get RC Book, from the third opposite party, thereby, causing grievance mainly to the first and second opposite parties, resulting this appeal.
6. The second opposite party ordered confiscation of TN-46-C-3730 TATA 207 D1 vehicle, since it involved in a prohibition offence, as per the power vested in him under Section 14 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. After confiscation, a public auction was conducted for its sale on 21.10.2005, in which, the complainant became the successful bidder, having opted to purchase the same at Rs.2,58,720/- being the highest amount, for which, totally he has paid a sum of Rs.2,58,720/- also, as evidenced by Ex.A1-Sale Certificate, dated 21.10.2005.
Pursuant to the sale and its confirmation, on the payment of entire sale consideration, even as admitted by the complainant, vehicle was handed over to him. Though the complainant had purchased the vehicle in the auction, he was unable to get the vehicle transferred in his name, for want of certain records.
For this, accusing all the opposite parties, as if, all of them are responsible, claiming various sums, as compensation, damage etc., a complaint came to be filed, which ended partially in favour of the complainant as said above. For the rejected claim, the complainant has not preferred any appeal.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants, contended that there was no deficiency of any kind on the part of the opposite parties and for the inaction on the part of the complainant alone, if at all, he was unable to get the RC transferred or registered in his name, for which, they cannot be held responsible, which fact was not properly considered by the District Forum, resulting injustice that should be erased, which is opposed, supporting the finding of the District Forum.
8. As far as the auction conducted, the participation of the complainant, payment of sale consideration, delivery of the vehicle to the auction purchaser namely the complainant, are all admitted. Therefore, we have to see, whether the first and second opposite parties should be held responsible, for non-transfer of the vehicle, in the name of the complainant and in the case of this kind of auction sale, what are the provisions available for the transfer of RC Book or for registration of the vehicle purchased in the auction. If the law mandates certain duties to be performed by the person, who had conducted the auction, if they failed in their duties, then certainly, we will not hesitate to say, that though they are public authorities, they have committed deficiency in service, warranting compensation also, since this kind of cases also will come within the jurisdiction of Consumer Protection Act.
Since there was consideration for the vehicle and that consideration should be taken for performing certain duties, pursuant to the auction also. On the other hand, if the law mandates, it is the duty of the auction purchaser, independently, to approach the RTO concerned for getting registration or transferring the registration of the vehicle, in case, he failed to do so, no deficiency would be attributed upon the person, who conducted the auction, in this case namely either the second opposite party or whose superior authority is the first opposite party.
9. As seen from the exhibits filed on behalf of the complainant, the complainant has not approached the authorities, concerned for registration of the vehicle purchased by him, in the auction except a letter written to the fourth opposite party, as well a complaint given to the Hon'ble Chief Minister.
Admittedly, as per the auction conducted, confirming the auction in favour of the complainant also, Ex.A1=Ex.B1-Certificate was given to the complainant, thereby, conferring the ownership of the vehicle in question, upon the complainant being movable properly.
The learned counsel for the appellants drew our attention, Rule 57 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, what is the procedure to be followed in this kind of cases.
10. Rule 57 prescribes the procedure, for transfer of ownership of the vehicle purchased in public auction conducted by the Central Government and State Government as the case may be, which says, a person who had acquired or purchased the motor vehicle at public auction should apply in Form-32 within 30 days on taking possession of the vehicle to the Registering Authority, accompanied by (a). the appropriate fee as specified in Rule 81; (b). the certificates of registration and insurance;
(c). the certificate or order confirming the sale of the vehicle in his favour duly signed by the person authorized to conduct the auction; and (d). certified copy of the order of the Government or State Government authorizing the auction of the vehicle. This Rule appears to have been enacted, considering the fact, in a case of confiscated vehicle if auction conducted it may be not possible to get the original RC Book. Therefore, the complainant cannot be complain that the first and second opposite parties specifically have failed to give RC Book, Road Tax, Insurance Policy etc., and it is his duty, to have the RC Book in his favour registered as contemplated under Rule 57, taking insurance if necessary, paying Road Tax also and it is not the duty of the first and second opposite parties.
11. The sale was conducted on 21.10.2005, Sale Certificate was issued on the same date, probably confirming the sale and delivery of the vehicle was also given on the same date, thereby, completing the entire transaction, on the part of the first and second opposite parties, and thereafter they have nothing to do in this matter. As said above, it is the duty of the complainant, to make an application in Form-32 within 30 days of taking possession of the vehicle, accompanied by the documents, mentioned above, which the complainant failed in this case admittedly, even as recorded by the District Forum in Para 14, which reads "The complainant has not produced a copy of his application that he has complied with the conditions as required under Rule 57 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989. So it is not possible to attribute any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party 3." The same logic is applicable, to the first and second opposite parties also.
Quoting some unnecessary passage, as if, public authorities have failed in their duty even without recording a finding, how the first and second opposite parties have committed deficiency in service, an order has been passed, which is in our view, not legally flavoured, which requires to be upset. The only duty cast upon the first and second opposite parties was, to issue the sale certificate which they did. Within 30 days, no application has been filed. The Registering Authority namely the third opposite party has not refused, the registration on the ground that the first and second opposite parties have failed to give necessary documents, for the registration of the vehicle, as contemplated under Rule 57 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989.
If the complainant had applied for registration, then it was refused on the ground that the first and second opposite parties failed to supply necessary documents, then they would be held responsible and not otherwise. The District Forum unnecessarily finding fault with the first and second opposite parties, as if, the complainant did everything properly, slapped an erroneous order, when there was no deficiency of any kind on the part of the first and second opposite parties.
12. It appears, the original owner of the vehicle purchased the same on the basis of the hire purchase agreement. As seen from the complaint, when he had taken the vehicle for insurance, the financier took the vehicle, for which, a complaint also given, for that also, a claim was made, which was negatived correctly. The purchaser alone has to take insurance and he alone has to pay the appropriate fee. Thus, it is seen in the above four conditions contemplated under Rule 57, (c) and (d) are fulfilled and (a) and (b) should be attended by the complainant, which he failed and this is the reason for non-registration of the vehicle, or want of registration, if he is unable to ply the vehicle, he alone should he blamed, for which, he cannot claim any compensation, which was not properly appreciated by the District Forum. For the above said reasons, we are of the considered opinion, that the direction issued to pay damage or direction issued to register the vehicle, are all unwarranted under law, which are liable to be set aside. However, it is felt, if the complainant approached the authority concerned, for registration of the vehicle, if it is not registered so far, for that if necessary, the first and second opposite parties may render their help and if they are bound to give any other documents, which are necessary for registration and there cannot be any direction also, to that extent since no deficiency has been proved. Thus, the appeal is meritorious, liable to be accepted.
13. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order of the District Forum in OP No.8/2006, dt.02.05.2007 is set aside, and the complaint is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their respective cost throughout.
14. The Registry is directed to handover the Fixed Deposit Receipt made by way of mandatory deposit, to the appellants/1st & 2nd opposite parties, duly discharged.
S. SAMBANDAM VASUGI RAMANAN M.THANIKACHALAM MEMBER II MEMBER I PRESIDENT INDEX : YES / NO Ns/mtj/Motors/fm